About this Show

Capital News Today

News/Business. News.

NETWORK

DURATION
03:01:00

RATING

SCANNED IN
San Francisco, CA, USA

SOURCE
Comcast Cable

TUNER
Channel 17

VIDEO CODEC
mpeg2video

AUDIO CODEC
ac3

PIXEL WIDTH
704

PIXEL HEIGHT
480

TOPIC FREQUENCY

Schumer 19, Us 13, United States 12, China 11, Franken 10, U.s. 9, Graham 8, Ireland 8, Cornyn 8, Texas 6, America 5, South Carolina 5, Alabama 5, Minnesota 5, Arizona 4, New York 4, Biomet 4, John Smith 3, Rubio 3, Iowa 3,
Borrow a DVD
of this show
  CSPAN    Capital News Today    News/Business. News.  

    May 16, 2013
    11:00 - 2:01am EDT  

11:00pm
>> which i think is really reid negative relatively enthusiastic about this nomination. i would like to thank our chairman, and the chairman of energy and natural resources, our friend for his leadership to levant's the nomination to the finish line nassau and recognize and thank the members of our committee for the thoughtful questions when we had the doctor before the committee it was perhaps one of the smoother confirmation hearings we have had in quite some time and i also think the senate for working with us so we can fulfil our constitutional responsibility for a advice
11:01pm
and consent today. before i speak to the qualifications and i do think senator wide and has addressed this very well, i would like to take a moment to discuss the agency. department of energy was created 1977 just following the oil embargo that caused the gasoline shortages that we saw around the country. the architect those to put together that context of dod was the very different energy landscapes of what we see today. back in 1977 energy was from the position of scarcity rather than the abundance that we recognize today. and those architects to defining what the department e mission with the client
11:02pm
hopes for what the department would accomplish and it what you need to go to is look back at the organic act that states doe would promote the general welfare by assuring coordinated and effective administration of federal energy policy and programs. pretty simple the same act goes on to list 18 different purposes of few of which they are -- bear repeating one is to the maximum extent practical that the productive capacity of private enterprise shall be utilized in the development and achievement of the policies and purposes of that act. another one is to provide for the cooperation of federal, state, and local governments in the development and implementation of national energy policies and programs. the third purpose is to carry out the planning and
11:03pm
coordination, support and management of a balanced and comprehensive energy research and development program. looking back at the doe creation is a reminder how far we have come and how far we still have to go to achieve the various purposes that were set out today the department has a budget of $25 billion each year with the cutting edge technology to manage the nuclear weapons stored to achieve the coordinated and effective administration of federal energy policy.
11:04pm
and to disagree if we have a federal energy policy that adequately serves our national needs. instead to see those programs and initiatives that are fragmented and scattered throughout the federal government not enough money in my a few for research and development a critical aspect of how we build up the energy policy and critical component to move to the future and now the targets that stand in the way of progress and in recent years i have become concerned doe and ambiguous the working to keep energy abundant, affordable, clean, diverse, secure principles that go into defining a good strong federal energy poli.
11:05pm
as i see it doe must be a stronger voice in the council of this of ministration for energy supply and in light of costly failures must become a better stuart of taxpayer dollars. all of these challenges and more will be inherited by our next secretary of energy. along with the challenges we recognize there are opportunities within the energy sector that is why i believe we will do well to is clearly a man must alex and experience of a laboratory and in public policy and we will do well to place and at the helm of these departments. a physicist graduating from boston college before completing his ph.d. at stanford and served in the white house office of science and technology
11:06pm
policy and as the undersecretary under the late 1990's, a vast majority with the energy initiatives studied with nuclear energy, natural gas in the number of topics that would have direct effect on the future of energy policy. they had experienced no certainly but he also has the practical application that mike colleague from oregon has described him as solution oriented and that is at last description and is an impressive nominee and from our meetings with it is nice and casual to get of good conversation i was
11:07pm
impressed with not only dr. background and experience but how he views moving forward within the department of energy. there is a level of comfortable confidence that i found it encouraging. he has shown he understands what his job requires and because of that he will be a capable secretary and is knowledgeable, confident and refreshingly candid and i think it is an important part of it and i challenge them in the confirmation hearing to keep that up. don't be afraid to speak out to be refreshingly candid. and to be navigated successfully? without undue delay as long
11:08pm
as questions are answered and concerns raised by members were taken seriously. because he did attempt to do that. it is my hope after his confirmation dr. muniz will guide the energy policy as a respected scientist that he is and do so vigorously vigorously, robustly, free of preordained conclusions and not afraid to speak up or speak his mind. the department will benefit and a the country will as well i have indicated the department of energy needs good strong direction and leadership and i believe that dr. moniz will provide both and that is why i support his nomination and why i asked my colleagues here in the senate to dreamy and voting to confirm him later this afternoon.
11:09pm
when evans
11:10pm
you can see is this event and other events with a warehouse anytime on our website. c-span.or but first-year are some of president obama remarks. >> i can assure you that i certainly did not know anything about the ig report
11:11pm
or when the ig report had been leaked to the press through the press. typically the ig reports are not supposed to be widely distributed or shared they tend to be a process everybody tries to protect the integrity of. but what i am absolutely certain of is the actions that were described in the ig report aren't acceptable so in addition to make sure we have a new acting director, we also make sure we gather up the fax and hold accountable and responsible anybody who is involved in this. week nature -- we make sure any structural or management issues to prevent something like this from happening again. we make sure we are accepting all of the recommendations the ig has an end of report and i am
11:12pm
looking forward to working with congress to fully investigate what happened to make sure it doesn't happen again and look at the laws that create a bunch of ambiguity in which the irs made to not having enough guidance and not be clear about exactly what they need to be doing and do it right so the american people have confidence that the tax laws are being applied fairly and evenly. so in terms of the of my house and reporting, i thank you have got that information from mr. carney and others. i promise you this then i found out about it that my main focus was to make sure we got the thing fixed. i think it will be sufficient f us te
11:13pm
working with congress and we have committees we have the ig there and the ig has done an audit is mine understanding that will be recommending an investigation. and attorney general over baja them -- holder announced a criminal investigation but we can find out what happened and who was involved and what went wrong and implement steps to fix it and that ultimately is the main priority i have also the american people. they understand they have an agency that has enormous potential power and is involved in everybody's lives and that is part of the reason why it has been treated as the clause i independent institution. that is why we have to make sure it is d job
11:14pm
scrupulously without a hint of bias or the hint that somehow they favor one group over another. and as i said yesterday, i am outraged by this because i am a public figure with the future administration starting to use the tax laws to favor one party over another one political view over another cover that is why if you are a democrat or a republican you should be equally of raged at even the prospect the irs might not be acting with complete neutrality that we expect and we should get there and get it done and we have begun the process and tells
11:15pm
it is finished. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]
11:16pm
i do think everybody for coming back and those of you who liked me studied various classics in college will recall dante and for no -- and for know i am not sure which rings this falls into. [laughter] but we will see if it shows up in the new book which is just coming out and if these sound like unconnected immigration comments it is a way to kill time.
11:17pm
[inaudible conversations] i think as soon as senator grassley is your we can move to the amendment and once we have 10 we will do the three judges on the agenda. >> senator sessions it is nice to have you here. of course. senator coons
11:18pm
senator grassley is here and we have nine but we're waiting for the tenth one to come so why don't you go to your memo that was pending when we had to recess for a vote at the last meeting. >> thank you mr. chairman of a bike to call-up amendment number four that would make hongkong eligible for the program and in this context i want to mention briefly amendment number three which is co-sponsored by senators that that amendment would create five-year multiple entry visa for visitors from mainland china that particular amendment has a lot of support because zero like to see many more chinese visitors coming to our country to come back multiple times. i will not call up that
11:19pm
amendment because administration is currently negotiating with china for the very thing that my amendment would focus on. site just wanted to mention that in the context of hong kong to be able to be part of the with be so waiver program that is all amendment number four would do this is a technical fix because under current law only a country can qualify to be considered for a the visa waiver program and hongkong is not a country so a special provision is needed. >> and stand it is co-sponsored by both senators hatch and lee and the state department ultimately has to decide whether hong kong was eligible? >> it does say the entity does make them elig which the
11:20pm
amendment from the senator from hawaii? >> entlyaidu. -- i do. hong kong is a part of china although they have different systems it is a remarkable place and we would love to have better immigration relations but senator specter, a number of years ago became the engage with the problem of immigration in china and their steadfast refusal to refuse to agree to take back those who violated laws in the united states or needed to be deported and we have a huge backlog of huge numbers in prison waiting to be accepted in the robotics at them and we have held the mont to so long and we have
11:21pm
to release and china will not behave well as a government and it is sad. because it would be good for america to have more people come back and forth. i am of the view that we should not be taking action that would reward china and would be offering legislation as some point* to insist there will be consequences that the way senator specter did to refuse to cooperate with normal immigration laws as china has been refusing to do. i know that hongkong the spirit is a lot different but essentially it is one of governor and the people from china could go in and out of hong kong and into the united states so i think caution. >> yours is hongkong specific? >> can be treated very differently with regard to
11:22pm
the visa with the citizens of hong kong and from as far as the other issues i certainly understand and they are a part of the ongoing negotiations sid ministration is having with china even as we speak. >> with the senator from alabama like the will call booked? -- roll-call votes to? >> i would note i will look at it further but as the facts are as i expect them to me it would be safe to change the language on the floor. >> mr. chairman i offer my support of this amendment and this is a country where we could well come visa waivers if they make them available for participating they have extended visa
11:23pm
treatment u.s. citizens and makes a lot of sense and more tourists spending more money in our country. >> could i complete one thought? china is clearly one of the world's worst in cooperating with the law and hong kong is a part of china not to the independent nation. for example, in 2010 we attempted to repatriate 1,279 and they accepted 51. we have held prisoners for long periods of time and they don't respond to our request and they are one of the worst in the world so i think we should be cautious to intervene politically to overrule the current status of lot as it has been established. >> i think under fairness we will have a roll call on the
11:24pm
amendment and the clerk will call the roll. [roll call] n]. >> the amendment is agreed to. >> i previously expressed my
11:25pm
concern about the absence of the effective exit system using the biometric identification and my sole reason for voting yes is on that basis we need to fix that because otherwise the visa waiver program dishes an invitation to people to overstay without effective enforcement. >> i would guess the senator from texas has been consistent with that. i appreciate it and i could not help them to see the devastation caused by a notice t texas in the northern part caused of your state this morning and i think all of us our hearts go out especially us, outething the moves that quickly with no notice. the roll call indicated we have th appropriate number .ere and we will go to the nominations.
11:26pm
i know senator grassley has a statement. >> last week we held over three nominees and iek w understand that that is good with me to move them. we ought to.h we have the nomination of have the circuit court for the district of colombia. it is well understood and accepted the nominations to the circuit have special avrutiny and is served as h special scrutiny and the court of appeals for the d.c. circuit has cases circuit affecting of americans as opposed to other sectors that is geographicallyere directed and at present there are four acting judges on the court who are appointed by republican presidents and three actived byn judges that should ourdemocr nominee be confirmed the court will be evenly divided
11:27pm
in terms of the appointing president's but yet despite the near parity there are those that claim that core is out of balance and one are senator has argued the courty o has beenof dominated by ther hag hard right citing decisions that limited government action by the obamaright, cit administrationin comment epa the and security exchange commission. n post" wroteo about the white house effort to quote-unquote tilt in itsrt , favor the d.c. circuit. the paper went on to say giving liberals a greater say on the d.c. circuit is grear important for obama as he looks for ways to circumvent the republican-led house and the polarized the senate.reubli- mr. chairman, this sort of thing which bothers me.his and it ought to concern each of us. decause the poitial iintssh thes the of one branch that is not to consider the politics to
11:28pm
but the facts and the law. the political questions are left to our legislativethe polil branch of government and those who advocate for those reminiscent of the fdr era to obtain the advantage inera, public policy to misunderstand the purpose of poi the court they are there toose r resolve cases and controversies and that isre language from our constitution. our they do so in a manner that the losing party does not liske the response shouldosg not be of the courts yet yet that is one messines or sponse written in and heard and eemand to fill up the d.c. circuit one way or another. " end quote. another,the court because it has issued rulings e against him illustration is a nsnical approach to the agai judicial branch and adds to is a
11:29pm
ape public dismay and concern for this government. distrust of government isn with too high today and we have reduce that distrust asrnment rights and liberties and andch grounded in the rule of remain law, not based on public the opinion or political persuasion is based on the rule of law. certainly we have had based on scandals that demonstrate the danger of overheating that politics to turn every policy dispute into the tenstop campaign issue. dispu rather than packing theto a nona antheds, and our consideration of judicial nominees for the d.c. circuit would be even moret measured and it is evident the d.c. circuit is thee al it busyand itklst
11:30pm
cate i d i have purts. statistics not based on my research but of thebased on administrative office of the u.s. court and will not u. going to them at this point* and i am sure everyone knows i have introduced legislation to reallocate to a necessary sees to circuits around the country with much higher workloads. i am understand there may not be unanimous agreement with the proposition that iundet will remind everyone i have been concerned about this for a number of years.is for and my participation goes back to the early 1990's when i was the only the court said the committeest udthat congress has ever set up to review the activitiese tht of the entire federal judicial system. later as the oversight aschair
11:31pm
subcommittee i conducted a study of the circuit court workload. this has been on my mind forit a a long time and a long while since this was reputed mr. chairman reed to examine the issue to hold hearingssue. and examine the workload andn t any her hat effort rupee beyond that beyond the circu currenitt nominee? t it is evident the nomineeular nm for the d.c. circuit is athe talented attorney training and experience are impressive. certain but theimpressi hearing did not give me ajudicil reason to be concerned this nominee will have said correct judicial temperamenthe to serve on this court and most colleagues but it was
11:32pm
surprising even before theminee. hearing had ended and immediately thereafter consent -- concerns areiately raised it could behis filibuster there were not own a and unfounded that put up there as a furtherot justification to call forunfoun their president to pack theident d.c. circuit. but in regard to further nominees there'll be a need to show the seats need to be going filled in now will be athe seats tough row to hoe as long as i am concerned especially when members on the other i'm side have sees that did not need to be filled a fewmembers years ago now the caseloadconvd is less. with regard to mr. chan i case have no objection for that nomination and finally we have the agenda on jennifer. >> a think they're all awareada.
11:33pm
of the campaign contributions out was navy explain about what further e tookx place and but given the particular events of this week to think there is a judici higher level of sensitivity ents o on how the public body higher l should be gave it this s ind. i am not prepared to support the nomination and i am not aware of the talk going on whili lover speaking of the other day cares what i said they will hear it because i amgoing o concerned of the caseload ofut th this circuit and the efforts to packet -- pack it. >> the senator had sought recognition but i would notenatr
11:34pm
that people are listening after all this is ai note peo ae committee as one of theall, first shares to make sure hearings are stream to r live so anybody can watch a.e. to talk about the case load certainly when we had a republican president and a caseload and we have a democratic president this is a very important court in .he case is a deal with iscourt more complex than others more every have judges on thes third, tenth and eighth circuit with lesser3rd, caseloads there are no 8 objections raised to them. let's keep the politics if we can't out of it the d.c.
11:35pm
circuit i know that senator sessions said early about the immigration markup about new judges and immigration said a cases a lot of work no doubt that and that of border work states with the months-long securities case those of the cases that end up in the of d.c. circuit. but going back to immigration.as soon ase >> can i be recognized?an, uld >> i will endeavor to be brief as part of the courts i want to bolster the point*. you complete the made thaty the d.c. circuit warrants closer attention than thec. argument made of caseloadme clor does not hold up historicahistorica l a. restore klay it was not aly.
11:36pm
storicto the judge griffith confirmation or to stop the 11th seat once were thedidn't s previous see under the bushsenae administration but today the return to the nomination on the eighth see increase to proceed to consider thesed nominees for the nine, nine, 10, 11 c and we willh, be debating that.wh i don't think cody alone to say he was the most nomation qualified i have seen in mybe alon time with a vehiclealified've juperstar and some of favor were renowned for their jurisprudence and republican employees and justice o'connor quoted o simply say at the nomination at hearing a call onhearing
11:37pm
temperament and a capability to respond to questions and i thought this was aent, tremendous cheering to gain the support of 12 highhis ranking officials and i amgh-rag pleased to hear that senator grassley is supportive of solic his nomination and i it look tot forward to the committeemina today. >> i know theti nominee and i ot agree with everything youda saidy. about him. hi mr the d.c. circuit has primary responsibility for those decisions made in the town as a result it has a long standing practice toire review the nominees to thet th e court and from time to timeies t we consider the need for foditional judges.consider need july 26 president bush and rove qualified but
11:38pm
in mr. kaiser is a month the finest in the country and seat o trying to bipartisan support throughout the legalmination freshened.support roughout t nevertheless he was blocked and his language, englishheless, and at the time my colleagues signed a letterkeisl. the d.c. should under no cut to circumstances be considered before reversed address the l needs they argue that the modest caseload did not comed.c. from additional judge.seload d more than six years of pat have passed with the d.c. circuit caseload is less aload and so light the appeals cour pending is less than half the average with the court of appeals and the d.c. than hal circuit caseload hasal decreased since the time they've locked mr. kaiser.nse te just like the nominee before
11:39pm
he is exceptionally qualified and joins broadnally n support throughout the oppression. i vot >> i doubly them partisan richard boucher i hope other controlled by democrats orn'parn republicans will continue to the contue toe such differences differens.ast. the d.c. circuit is one areahe . a share common ground butone democrats and republicans have argued the d.c. circuitt do as to any authorizedepublica judgeships and other courts struggle to keep up the d.c. circuit has scheduled release scheduled arguments c for lack of pending cases ipendg am original cosponsor of thefor cory efficiency act introduced last month the
11:40pm
bill does not understand and the fact that nominee but the judgeships to other federal appellate courts andreae i hope that members of thisfromc committee from both sides will dreamy to ensure the 10 and necessary circuit judgeships are reallocatede in ringhe courts need additional judges. thank you.to >> o logistic a few minutes and one to identify with senator grassley if i couldhatc? comment but i would like to plan now i was impressed poi with him. he is an excellent choice and i do believe that there bel is no question the d.c.ld circuit handles very, very important cases many of ver which are extensive cases. i do understand the court bese is on the document and lowm
11:41pm
i know they're not overworked down there. no and i could just say they keep the data lot to the can s ability with his caseloads add because he doesn't have experience for as young as he is.he h and i was at first when he appeared and before the committee and i announced my support then an announcer here today. these are really important positions. i hope does he indicated he he played. he he justice and not worry about politics. >> just want to urge, i am not sure point is helpful h with the effort to pack thengon
11:42pm
court is a phrase that the merged from the roosevelt era when there was the effort to add new seats to the supreme court. seatso th we're dealing with is consistent vacancies before and we come at this in the environment in a pitched alas candidate was filibustered in violation of p the rule that was developedese w under the gang of 14 which t is there would then be deve filibusters on judges unless extraordinary circumstances with respect to her there were no circumstances. ci so we are kind of in a. strange zone where the rules we have been living undertrange have been violated and reid did nothing about that now there is a qualified candidate i am glad this will move forward but i think to the extent filling vacancies to packs the cour
11:43pm
when you could argue itto thet elready has been attacked byncih you blicans that is not a helpful way to have this en discussion.is disc >> and several people ask the scheduled. session we will continue tonight and tell around 5:00 and if not finished we will come back 9:30 a.m. tomorrow morning. senator session. >> the court of appeals is not quite like they just have the appellate transcript to work from. they are the caseload circuit was 118 appeals filed and also new york four times as high in they have complex cases and the 11th circuit it is five times as
11:44pm
high as bryson and the -- senator grassley and i have been working to follow and that we have consistently opposed selling unneeded vacancies and we succeeded to move one vacancy when bush was in office he wanted to fill it we blocked it to move into the ninth circuit. senator feinstein, remember? we need to move water to more this nominee is excellent and i does want to discourage the view we have been inconsistent to point* out the need with the judge on the circuit in my colleagues have been inconsistent. thank you, mr. chairman. >> mr. chairman. >> any further? i am sorry. senator. >> i shared that
11:45pm
confirmation hearing and i am glad that there are no issues as ford jennifer and that one that she made was made by someone in the law firm that raises the concern his hold on negative card to hear her be responsible. >> we're not on that one yet but the clerk will call the roll for the d.c. circuit. [roll call]
11:46pm
is experimental he will be reported to the floor and the next line is agreement never 10 u.s. circuit judge all those in favor say aye? >> the ayes have it and they will escort you to the floor and the roll call has ben requested but the color call the roll. >>
11:47pm
[roll call] >> senator grassley wishes to say something's been met on the issue that mr. winehouse brought up and other senators i just want to make it very clear that the gang of 14 agreement applied by the terms only to the years 2005 and 2006 and i vote to the pending and
11:48pm
future judicial nominations of the 109th congress and i have other statistics aboutaors involved in that when they voted for cloture and since then i will not take the time of the committee but i don't know that we won't hear a and eight of us who your otherwise that is in place. >> where do you call up your amendment number 71? >> yes. >> you are recognized. >> i am offering a lot -- authorizing this for your benefit. this amendment. >> he is looking out for me. >> of course. sitting here in the middle i feel the love washing over from both. please consider senator grassley.
11:49pm
this amendment would replace the provision of the bill related to the special non immigrate piece of program and as currently drafted this special earmarked would allow most skilled workers to so there is also discretion for the secretary to waive crowns of inadmissibility. while the more prudent course of action on this provision is to strike it i am offering an amendment that would put parameters on this program. these are the same parameters that senator schumer and i agreed to last year. i want to repeat that for senator shivers benefit because he was not paying
11:50pm
attention. [laughter] >> how do know that spirit visa the same parameters senator she ran and i agreed to last year for people watching not on this committee. >> i can hear you. >> he is a democrat i am the republican. here is what my amendment does. it would create a new visa classification for individuals from the republican -- republic of ireland to allow individuals to enter the united states after an employer files a lot -- labor test in the bill would allow 10,500 new visa to be available each year for two years and the visa would be a good for two years although indefinitely renewable the application of 10,500 would be divided into three categories of workers.
11:51pm
3500 for specialty occupations where those with specialized knowledge of a bachelor or higher degree of 35 enter it for aliens who have the least a high-school education or equivalency and 35004 aliens identified years of the data application for the visa under the subject to have three years of work for which the aliens are applying. both the principal alien would be required to pay a fee of $300 and the bill would prohibit individuals on the irish visa to be eligible for means tested public benefit and finally it includes with the implementation of the irish visa program when a call max the secretary of state certifies that the government of ireland provide immigration benefits
11:52pm
to nationals of the united states that are similar considering the relative population size of the two countries to the benefits provided to nationals of ireland under this act. again, this is the concept that senator schumer and i agreed to last year. i don't think we should create special visa program just for in the country but the whole purpose of the immigration bill outside beyond the legalization part dealing with the illegalize provisions of the of gang of 8 bill is to provide workers that are needed for the united states and with that same principle applied to ireland as well as any other country or individuals coming? we should have better parameters stand as a gang of 8 to build.
11:53pm
if it was good enough why aren't those same parameters restrictions good enough for now. >> patrick leahy will give his views. >> i want to sink my a friend charles grassley that we share rich more in common for instance, only to ruche i enjoy the repartee. on this amendment, the bottom line is very simple
11:54pm
we always had a program to help irish immigration's because american and ireland -- ireland with a common history it is 41 million americans to claim to be part of irish ancestry but the proposal actually addresses consequences unintended from a 1965 immigration law in denver in a disadvantage irish nationals to enter the united states. ever since that time my predecessor on this committee and senator kennedy sought to rectify and we had a series of programs that diversity basis which we are terminating now with request of many on the other side. and beekeeper sun setting the provisions that creates disruption may have a similar program with
11:55pm
australia and singapore and chile and none of them have the same connection to the united states that ireland does and some of the program has a two-year sunset that by the time it that started it would be over. i would just conclude by quoting somebody who is my mentor and idle in the senate verandas committee so well for so long and i do think his spirit is hovering over this bill as we talk about it, senator kennedy sponsor of the 1965 law that i mentioned in for in the to impact that irish negatively and said in 2006 but we were trying to do was to eliminate the discrimination that existed in the law but the with the legislation was developed worked in a dramatic way against the irish. the proposal in the bill with dawson setting after two years without stopping
11:56pm
things up creates a program very similar and i would urge support. >> i have but i have discussed it with the irish truck asthma as the superb ambassador colin -- collins. >> but with a troubled history that is part of the diaspora especially to our country and other english-speaking countries but when i think of the shared history we have with ireland, where i think of presidents and the irish
11:57pm
ancestry president reagan and president obama and others i know about the shared history. i worry about wealth of being to work and live in the united states and then deny any public benefit when they make up valuable contribution to our society and i don't know how you deny things like emergency medicaid to the visa holder to say you cannot have that that cost west but go to the emergency room which will cost us more. frankly i feel very strongly about the visa we have from a number of countries but the irish teacher and i will fight for with senator durbin. >> beginning of fate worked carefully to make sure richard care of this problem. we knew was a challenge and we have been trying to resolve this problem for years. i will tell you the honor to
11:58pm
represent the city of chicago that has a few irishman and proud of it it, the irish population has been so supportive not just for themselves but for others because like many groups in the nation's history they knows what it means to face discrimination and face the problems of a major element of leadership of our country today with the rich national heritage and i fully support the provision in the bill and urge my colleagues to resist the amended from senator grassley. . .
11:59pm
the other thing thing is that senator schumer didn't answer my question about good enough last time, it wouldn't be good enough this time. i thought we worked out a strong comprise. if it was brought up last year, we wouldn't be dealing with it this year as far as the united states senate is concerned. i'm going withdraw the amendment, mr. chairman. >> thank you, the amendment is withdrawn. i call up leahy amendment number two. let me describe it. it would make support job
12:00am
improvements. >> are we cone with the first of title iv? >> we are? >> nothing can be brought up again on tight -- title iv? >> if it's closed. it's closed. >> excuse me. >> on the first charge. >> the first charge is closed, obviously, they have been called by consent, yes. >> number of amendments as you can see from my colleague from utah here, we are working very hard to negotiate an agreement, and i have asked the senator from utah to defer the amendments. cloture vi is included in washington. in hopes question get an agreement for early next week we ask permission to come back. >> mr. chairman, mr. chairman, i -- you know, at some point we
12:01am
have to vote on these things. senator from utah. >> mr. chairman, i really appreciate the way your side has worked with a number of us on the committee, both democrats and republicans, and i'm happy to put this until next week. hopefully question resolve it. it's extremely important. not just to me, but i think to the -- i want to thank the distinguished senator from new york for diligently working with us on this side. it means a lot. -- [inaudible] >>let -- perhaps it's one of the things we can address tomorrow morning and tomorrow afternoon. we can make sure we we can get it -- i call my leahy amendment number 2. the amendment, as i said, would make important job intriew. in the senate program.
12:02am
they talk about investment in america and the power of immigration to make our economy stronger. my assessment going to adjust that. the program created many good paying jobs for american workers in the state of vermont, as well as iowa, utah, new york, texas, and other states that are currently improved regional senates in alabama, and the senator from alabama and i worked closely on the matter. arizona, connecticut, hawaii, iowa, south carolina, texas, utah, as i said, my state. citizens of the state of the 16 members of the committee using the important program to create jobs and improve communities. the regional center program was enacted in 1993. senate grassily and i worked together to reauthorize it in 2003. fought for several extension of the program since then. last year i worked with senator
12:03am
grassley, cornyn, hatch and schumer to extend the program for another three years. -- contain the permanent authorization for the important program. senator grassley had a suggestion by senator grassley to significantly increase oversight authorities -- excuse me. for the department of homeland security. i've included these measures along with idea to make the program more efficient for the businesses and investors that participate in it. we're going have a voice for the amendment. certainly does anybody wish to speak to it? senator from alabama. >> mr. chairman, you worked on this for a number of years, i've been pleased to work with you on it. this clearly is a job creating immigration amendment. it allows persons to come to
12:04am
america, if they're going invest, and if they're going create jobs. and you tighten it up on the language is tight. it says secretary shall perform background check on individuals associated with the center. fingerprint, fbi, checks, and a number of other coms and make sure it's not abused, but most of us in our states have seen the advantage of foreign investment. we have a toyota plant, a mercedes plant. they invested millions of dollar creating tens of thousands of job and it's been good for the economy. i believe your amendment strengthens the bill, i believe it puts us on a right path, i believe it's good for america in the national interest. i thank you for your leadership. [inaudible] >> anybody else wish to speak to
12:05am
the amendment? those in favor of the amendment signify by saying aye. >> aye. >> oppose? the aye appear to have it. call the senator on both sides of the aisle. senator sessions, senator grassley, everybody else that worked with us in making this amendment -- [inaudible] senator grassley has an amendment. what number? >> remember two days ago i said i had questions on this that i want to ask. the w program is available so anybody that of the gang of 8 can answer this, or anybody else that wants to speak to. the w program is available for foreign workers outside the united and want to enter through legal channels. it doesn't allow people here
12:06am
illegally to apply for a w visa. would someone who has been here illegally but returns to their home country be el diswroibl apply? -- eligible to apply? [inaudible] i guess senator flake, you're the one that is left here. >> i'm -- yeah. anybody wish to an the question? >> subject to the same three and ten-year bars. >> i'm sorry. >> senator flake? >> yes. it would be subject to the same three and ten-year bars. >> secondly, employers who apply for the register position must try to find a u.s. worker first. that requirement is on age 818, yet on page 807 a u worker is defined and it includes people who are in rpi status. question, does it mean that employers must first offer a job
12:07am
or recruit the individual who broke the law and awarded rpi status before they use this legal immigration program? if so, isn't this unfair to people who are following the law and applying for a w visa from their home country? >> it means before you hire from somebody from abroad you have to look at the entire pool of talent here. >> okay. three, a person applying for a w visa wants -- w visa must, quote, agree to accept only registered position in the united states, end quote. question, can you point to any language that tells us what happens to the w visa holder if they don't abide by this term, and are found working for a nonregistered employer? >> if after sixty days, their
12:08am
visa can be revoked if they don't have employment. their w visa wouldn't pass e-verify. they wouldn't be able to stay. they have to have employment. >> and that also applies in to somebody found working for a nonregistered employer? >>. >> yes, they have to comply be with the law. it would be a violation of their visa. >> i have just three more questions. on page 811, it says, quote, a w nonimmigrant shall report to such nonimmigrant a employment in a registered employment not later than fourteen days than such nonimmigrant admitted to the united states. end of quote. how does an employer -- this is a question. how does the employer know when a w visa holder is admitted. what the if the person doesn't show up for weeks. how would the employer know to
12:09am
notify the department of homeland security if the employer doesn't know the admitted date? >> like the students, there's a data base. if they don't show up, then it's noted. we'll know. they're part of the data base. just like we have with students. better than we have today with students, frankly. [laughter] we have a pretty increase system. we don't have a good exit system. >> on page 812, the bill said that a w visa holder can be unemployed for a period of no more than sixty conservative days. question, couldn't a person be employed for two days, leave the employer, work where else for four days, leave that employer and so on? why not say cumulative rather than conservative? shouldn't we be worried about those that may abuse this work requirement? >> i think we would be happy to work with you on something like that. >> okay.
12:10am
last question: the w visa program places a havety fee on employers that need workers. the aliens only have to pay for their own transportation and passport costs. question, why do the authors not include any processing or other fees for w visa applicants? >> the fees are pretty extension pitch they're funding the data base and the makeup the program. whether it's employee -- i'm sorry the employer or the individual there are substantial fees. i think we can all agree with that. >> i don't dispute that. just i was wondering why not the applicant that wants to come here to work. >> well, they're here for employment. i think it would be difficult under the current law, that burden is typically on the
12:11am
employer to pay those fees if they want them to come. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. thank you. you told me you want to ask the questions, of course -- do you have an amendment now? [inaudible] >> senator -- grassley i offer your amendment. 75. i'm going withdraw. >> you're going withdraw? >> mr. chairman, i thank senator graysly for raising the issue and the w one and two visa that remain. >> excuse me. -- [inaudible conversations] number on? >> 76. >> 76, okay. >> the real question. i want to ask maybe i can dispose of an amendment. i have filed without a vote. just by commenting on this. i guess my first question would
12:12am
be to sponsor of the legislation. does the exit of a w one w two visa have to be accompanied by a biomettic identifier so we have an exit system that bimetically records that the immigrant left at the time they were supposed to or did not leave? >> senator from new york? >> yeah. we don't have a separate system for w visa. it's the exit-entry system is the same for all visa. it makes the most sense. >> well, it makes no sense to me in the sense that we need a biometric exit system. you are correct, i accept the fact that there are no separate system for that and for the w visa. i would just point out that this it another powerful reason we
12:13am
need a biometric exit system. if you allow large numbers of persons on the visa, in this case w visa to enter the country, we need to know if they're going leave. one of the biggest problems we have in immigration today is people overstaying their visas and there's no heck noifm even know if they overstay. so i guess i would say to you, i want to ask one vote on my amendment. we have two votes on it so far. senator graham changed the vote last time and voted for my biomettic amendment. senator rubio, i would note, made clear he wants a biometric enter-exit system. and disappointed in the vote that we had the other date because it voted down on the closed vote. i think we need continue to work on the biometric exit. i believe the w visa system
12:14am
cannot be sold to the american people as an effective system if we can't tell them we know when people complete their work and whether or not they left the country. what we have got in this system, in many of the visa programs, probably, you have to know you have gotten large number of people coming in, they are supposed -- some of them are supposed to leave at various times. they are going to -- they are coming with their family. they are staying multiple years and large numbers of them will not leave. and so; therefore, we're not going achieve the lawfulness in the system we promise the american people would be achieved if the bill passed. we had a couple of votes on the system. we'll continue to discuss the need for biomet -- biometric. >> i want to make one point. the system is just what it should be. you come in, you have a passport, you're obviously person coming in on a visa. you then, on the way out, you
12:15am
forceable.the passport. and it integrates with the whole system to see when people here and when they are not. it's a very strong system, and the w visa system has its own can that base which is integrated to the rest. >> senator schumer, at least that better than the present system for most people, but it doesn't strike me that has been effective. and i appreciate your comment. >> but -- [inaudible] [inaudible conversations] 76, the graysly grassley. yield for one quick question. >> i would be happy to yield. >> i hear what you're saying about the passport coming in and the passport going out. what if the person on a temporary visa never shows up to swipe the passport on the way
12:16am
out? that's the point. right now we have no way of knowing. because nobody swipes anything on the way out, and now there would be -- the system that work that john smith overstayed his visa, and they would go track down john smith, john smith would not -- if he was a studen they -- se are w visa. he wouldn't be allowed to b employ. you have to show the card for any employment. they track him down and find him. now they do nothing. >> i agree they do nothing now. i don't have much confidence that they -- that will change. the time we encounter people who overstay the visa if they commit crimes, and then they're screened. if they commit serious crimes they are deported. right now we have no effective system. i agree with senator sessions it's not substitute for biometric entry-exit system. which, i think, is the only dependentble way to ensure the
12:17am
american people -- illegal immigration which is a product of the entry-exit system which has been the law of the land for seventeen years is a disaster. >> i would say to my colleague, my good friend. whether it's biomet trick or swiping a passport. you have to enforce the law. we allow some kind of automatic -- but the issue of biomet trick, which we discuss at length yesterday very expensive and very every time it's been proven it's flopped. if we push the biometric system we probably have nothing for a decade. having the system, that worked, as i mentioned, it worked in many places as a tryout and the disney land example. disney land did a fingerprint, and when they -- i can't remember which one. i think disney world did a fingerprint and disney study hod it worked, they went back to picture of biographic system like the passport at disney world. every place that it's i've been
12:18am
a big supporter of biomet trick. if you want something to work, and you want to go in effect in a reasonable amendment time simply say let's do a biometric. we've been saying it for years since 2001. we haven't had one. it's a known system, if not bulletproof, as close as you can come, and if you want to -- i the to have the possible perfect ten years in the future be the enemy of the extremely good doesn't make much sen to me. >> i would say briefly in response, that the flaw is that people don't exit there's essentially no mechanism for identifying them and making sure that they honor the temporary nature. >> i would say this, first, that argument is a very valid argument.
12:19am
it has nothing to do with the type of system biomet rick or otherwise. if you don't go through the gate go back out of the country you're not going to find them. second, it's automatically. these are work visa, w visa. they are tie to the whole employment system. no company will be able to hire this person. that's a pretty good incentive for people to not get work if they can't get work. i know we understand there will a lot of people who don't have visa that are working now in our country, i agree with that a e verify employer verification system will work. i think it's naive to think that to solve all of our problems. i'm just asking, mr. chairman, i know there have been statements made about how expensive a biometric system is,
12:20am
but i know it's heavily contested. i wish we could get good information from people who know it. i can't believe it's expensive. i believe it will be superior than the system senator schumer describes. >> mr. chairman. . >> senator grassley amendment. >> yes. >> thank you. just to clarify, the amendment i'm offering, and going to withdraw bring up clause in the bill. we have been discussing flaw about the exit-entry system. my remarks are in regard to the employer monitoring system. this amendment would require the electronic employer tracking system to be fully implemented and fully deployed prior to the admission of w nonimmigrants. on page 849, the bill says, quote, the secretary through t
12:21am
utah citizenship and immigration service shall implement and electronic monitoring system to monitor presence and employment of w nonimmigrants. such system shall be modeled on the student and exchange visitor information tracking system of the imriets immigration and customers enforcement, end of quote. this language poses questions. first, are we going mandate employers use e verify? and a new system that is not even established yet. we do mandate that employer use e. verify. but then -- monitor it on a system not yet established. are we going base the new tracking system on the flawed,
12:22am
ineffective and broken system that tracks sudents today? we just had a discussion on that. we talked a bit on tuesday about the student tracking system. in 1996, after the '93 world trade center attack, congress mandated that the immigration service with cooperation from schools and universities collect information on foreign students. this system took years to get up and running. in fact, it still wasn't in place on 9/11. while it's operational today, there is still work to be done to make sure that the system is effective. yet, this bill would require the u.s. citizenship and immigration service the same agency in charge of the legalization program, the e verify program, and every other immigrant benefit to set up monsterring system for the employers that use the new w visa program.
12:23am
this bill lacks clarity on this system. it doesn't provide any details on when it has to be developed or deployed. it doesn't say what penalties would be assessed if an employer doesn't use it. more over it doesn't protect anyone's privacy. surely member of the committee wouldn't want an employer's information to be made public or misuse by an employer. if the w visa program is going to be based on the student tracking system, that's what the bill requires, then our employer is going designate certified users of the program. are we going to be trained on how to use the system? we have a huge problem with the student tracking system because some designated school officials, we call those dso are misusing the testimony, not using it properly, and sometimes
12:24am
not tracking students' activities like they should. under the student tracking system, the be lawful, permanent residence tent or u.s. uetizens. t fered bysenator feinstein and this senator that would require the dso to undergo a background check. are we going require employers of low skill workers to have designated officials only use a program? are they going to -- are they prepared to pay for the background checks for their designated officials? what if they have high turn overrate? it makes one wonder if small businesses will be able to take advantage of the program. if we require them to use this system, and they don't have the resources this w visa program will employers. restaurant and hotel chains. it's a situation or large
12:25am
packing plant and companies that have the resources to cross state lines. some businesses should be very wary of the program. they will lose out and be squeezed by the big businesses that have the resources to operate e verify on the front end in this monitoring system on the back end. the bill is silent on every one of these issues. it's got something that we have to clarify. we potentially have an enormous gaping hole here. we have a huge hole in one student visa process. that has been highlighted by the terrorist attacks in this country, '93, 2001, and 2013. so we have to ask everybody, when are we going to wake up? i want a temporary worker program that will work. i want legal avenues for people to enter and work in this country. i want there to be programs available to all businesses in
12:26am
the united states when they can't find american workers. so we need the w visa program. i think this issue must be resolved. i know, that a lot of hard work and negotiations went in to the w visa program. i know that both labor union and business groups tackle some difficult issues. finally reaching an agreement. this is such an important part of the bill that during the year 2006, or 2007 whenever it was, it brought down the last immigration bill that we tried to pass at that particular time. you have to raise the question, can the body really allow a program to go forward if the key element to tracking workers and ensuring integrity of the program is missing? i p that thessor of the bill will work with me on this issue as we move forward. and i -- as i said, i'm going wrawl the amendment. i thought it was important that at the committee level we understand some of the
12:27am
shortcomings of the legislation so we can get it right. because we have to pass an immigration bill because the present immigration system is broken. >> thank you. i agree. the senator from california. >> i'm going withdraw. >> i'm going to as long as -- shier in number 5. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and i thank the senator grassley for wrawling the amendment although i agree with a lot of what he said. and i do agree with senator cornyn that we ought to look more deeply to the biometric system. it come my attention that some states are using it on driver's licenses. i would like to have a examghts how closestly it is. perhaps we can work together not to stop this bill, but it seems to me, if there's a better identification system, one that
12:28am
county be foiled. i think we should have it. if it's cost effective i know we should have it. it seems to me those are the two things that we need to determine for the future. i'm happy to work with you in that regard. >> senator sessions. >> i say the gangle 8 decided they couldn't make it happen. but it can be made to happen. it's got to be made to happy. i don't believe the legislation can pass if we don't have a biometric exit system as current law requires and has for a number of years and they established through the pilot program that can be work. and "usa today" said the best estimate are $3 to $6 billion. i don't know it's not 25, it's not 10 airports have been -- [inaudible] my best judgment. that's where we are. i don't see how if your legislation that rejects and reveals current law that
12:29am
requires biometric and takes us to buy graifng exempts having exit systems at land borders can be any way suggested strengthen current law. because current law requires biometric exit systems at land borders. so the american people need to know you are not strengthening current law. you are weakening current law. we can make the system work. if a person comes here on a visa, we need to know when they leave. if we don't have a system now, which we don't, that effectively carries that vision out, the new law weakens a requirement even further. so we have a long way to go on that. i want to offer my amendment. we voted twice on it. i would note again that senator rubio, and his handout has said that there's a concern. the exit system omits land ports
12:30am
of entry, solution, the amendment and amendment to require the exit system to be implemented and operational at our listened -- land port of entry. not just air and seaport as the current bill does. and what i think will have to be any any bill becomes law. >> senator from arizona. >> let me say briefly, i too believe we need to move to the system at some point. the question is how quickly we can get there. should we hold up the rest of the bill for this? i think that so. amendments to come will deal with that. senator hatch, i believe has the best amendment in the regard that could come up as part of title for. it would establish within two years a mandatory buy metric data system for the ten u.s. core thirty airport. after the time these are the one that support the biggest level of air travel. five years after an accident gao would say how is it working?
12:31am
and unless congress acts it would be mandatory to top thirty airport and go on from there. i think it's a thoughtful amendment. i hope we'll consider it. this provides for gao to look at it and see what the cost is. see how effective it is. in the meantime we'll have a system that senator schumer describe which is a vast improvement what we have today which is virtually nothing for an exit system. as we go through this, i think question reach out make sure that we are on the road to buy metic. we don't hold up the bill that immigration reform for that. >> would the senator yield for a quick question? >> is there a trigger associated with the implementation of the entry exit system? in other words -- what i'm worried about it's been the law of the land since 1996 we have entry exit system. yes. and it's never been admitted.
12:32am
>> implemented. >> right. i wonder what the hammer is if we can use to force the bureaucracy. >> the trigger is before anybody can adjust status to a green card status. i think they will speak to that. >> senator graham, it's -- senator graham. following up on senator cornyn's point. it's a big discussion among the group here. st it's what should the triggers be. when it was proposed, and the adjustment cannot take place until you have an entry exit system implemented up and running and e verify. i thought it was probably the biggest improvement we've had since 2005, on how to get our borders secure and control illegal immigration. so it is a trigger. here is the question for the body, the current law says buy metric, but the truth of the
12:33am
matter, congress hasn't acted on that rome. we had republican presidents, we had republican congressman, we had democratic congressman and democratic presidents we have never invested in to making the exit system bye metric. under the current system it doesn't work very well at all. our foam have a photographic identifier is far better than the current system. having said that, senator cornyn, i want you to know if it were left up to me, we would have a biometric social security card. >> that's right. >> we wouldn't just have a piece of paper. we would have a buy metic social security card which would be the ultimate protection against illegal hiring. every american over time would turn therapies of paper to a buy metric document and we would end, in my view, illegal hiring through that process better than anything i can think. of had some push back from the libertarian friends. when it comes to the exit
12:34am
system, i'm where senator flake is at. let's go with the hatch proposal. i want bye metric as far as the eye can see in many ways as possible poe 9/11 to protect the nation. to make it a trigger in light of how much it costs and how long it takes goes too far. making it a mandate on thirty airports that can do you over time, i think it's the right balance. i don't want to cut anybody off. there are some that are hoping to get -- at the rate we're going it will be senator afternoon. senator cornyn, you want to say something? >> yes. amendment number 5. >> i'll tire to be brief. i want to make clear, i asked the gang members to clarify what the trigger is. the big only requires a system be in use, if it's in use, does it cover all land port, all
12:35am
seaport, and all airports who are just fraction of those? >> all air and sea. >> all air and seaports. that's the trigger. but not the land port. i would note that senator session said we have millions of people coming across through the land port on a daily basis. obviously i'm concerned that this not slow down the commerce and visitors, but it is a huge hole. i would say that it look looks to me that the trigger for the entry exit system is actually different from the trigger for the border security element in the bill. i would like one of the gang members to explain. as i read the bill, the trigger for for the border security component requires a plan to be produced. not a plan implemented or a
12:36am
planned achieve certain metric or results. why was there a decision to treat the border security trigger differently than these other triggers? >> can i take a shot at that? >> i would like to offer my -- [inaudible] >> offer my amendment. we have debated the buy metric yesterday at great length. debated more on the floor. i'd like to move my amendment. >>. >> i would like to get an answer. >> could i -- [inaudible conversations] i don't think it's an unreasonably question. i think it's a good question. i think we need to talk about what we decide is good border security. if you can make it better without destroying the bill, great. on the republican side, we have a reputation of never quite getting there on border security. why are we tieing the pathway to citizenship to a guest worker
12:37am
program? because i'm not going give 11 million illegal immigrants a pathway to citizenship until i get something i want. i want a new immigration system. i'm not going to trust them to give it to me after they get on the path of citizenship. our democratic friends are not going trust us to hold everything up until we are satisfied with border security. you live on the border, i know you're -- sincere as possible. we have to talk about the elephant in the room here. every time we have this debate, there's always the reason the border is not quite secure enough. we spent billions of dollars, we have 21,000 border security agents on the border, we are spending $4.5 billion more. we have 18 drones, we have technology that we used in iraq and afghanistan, and we're going to have, as a trigger with than the comprehensive southern border strategy is substantially
12:38am
deployed in operation. we're going have to some terms that are this flexible because at the end of the day, people on their side believe we're going use 90% or 95% to find one problem in the border. we never quite get there. your desire to secure this border is my desire. the southern border strategy is substantially completed. to me that makes sense. as senator cornyn expressed numerous times fences are not the best security available to the country in some parts. so in my view, the mandatory e verify system is the ultimate board or security. they come here to get jobs. as to the land base exit system, the seaports and the airport have not had the attention the land base system has. that's why we created a new system that's the gap in the system. if the airport and the seaport
12:39am
look at boston, that's the gap. on the land side, we're entry improving every day. i want to do more. i'm not against biometric. i'm against having systems that can never be achieved in my lifetime. i'm against moving -- i'm for moving forward and making our border more secure. the reason we have 11 million illegal immigrants, none coming from canada, is because the people who come here from the south and overstay the visa come from very distressed part of the world. we're going to enhance border security by using more money using more technology. we're finally, in my view, going
12:40am
address the cause of the problem. controlling who gets a job. under the bill, if you're an employer and you hire somebody illegally in the future you're either going go to jail or lose your business. that's a long overdue reform. mr. chairman, -- . >> yeah. certainly open the schumer number 5 amendment anybody else wish to talk about it? we can have a voice vote? >> yes. if i can respond briefly to my friend. drug cartel and human traffickers don't use e verify. >> i'm sorry. drug cartel and human traffickers don't use e verify. they don't use an entry-exit system. and so that's -- i don't doubt the inner isty what the gang proposed. here more fundamental problem is that the border security component -- trigger calls for
12:41am
the plan. it does nautical for results. -- does nautical for results. it -- to do away with that as a metric to judge their success and they have yet to come up with a substitute, which is a so-called border security index. so the i would defie anyone to be able to show based on results as opposed to hopes, aspiration, and dream that the br secure. that's what ieieve the american people expect and deserve. and the fact, if this bill were
12:42am
to pass without adequate measures for eliminating the source and ouch of the illegal immigration, i think this bill is designed to fail i know no one here wants the bill to be designed to fail. >> yeah. senator grassley. . >> let me. the gentleman brings up great point. [inaudible conversations] i think there is maybe a little misunderstand what substitutes an actual trigger. submit tal of the plan or substantial completion. with this legislation, what we're saying before the status can start for anyone that has to be plan submitted. keep in mind, that plan has to be substantially deployed if it does not produce 90% effectivenesses after five-year period. the department of homeland security loses control to a local commission made up of governors, ranchers, and others
12:43am
who will spend an additional $2 billion, and then you have the period of time before anyone can adjust their status where it's not just a matter of splitting a plan. already triggers have been tripped. if a substantial -- if out percent effectivenesses is not reached. before anybody can adjust status these have to be dpe employed. the commission put forward. these are not just plans submitted. it's substantially more than that. before anybody can adjust status. the entry exit system has to be in use. not just a plan submitted in use. and e verify has to be in use. the confusion may exist on whether rpi status starts as opposed to adjustment of status
12:44am
beyond that. i don't the sincerity of the plan. thank you for the explanation. in fact the commission has no power other than to create another plan. and i -- it's just -- that plan has to be substantial and completed. it's not submit tal that triggers anything. before anybody can adjust status it has to be deployed. i don't underestimate the sincerity in the senator and the gang of 8 in their aspirations and hopes and dreams for this. it's a plan -- it's a hypothetical plan, and we don't know if it will be implemented. that's my concern. >> thank you. senator grassley had a question of senator schumer. >> senator schumer, question. it seem your amendment works contrary to what we are trying
12:45am
to accomplish here. we have people in other countries that are waiting in line to come here legally to work under the program set up here. with your secondary registry, it seems to me you are giving preference to people that are already here, and if those people aren't working, why are they still here? >> it's very simple. what we're saying here before you can bring someone from out of the country in to the country to work, you either have to find americans or someone already here on a work visa or bringing someone else new you ought to look at the supply in the country. so the other registry is all the people who are already here on w visa maybe wrg. maybe they're no. if they're not you look at them. >> if they're not working they aren't supposed to be here. >> after sixty days they have to leave.
12:46am
during the sixty days you ought to find them so you don't bring in someone new. i think it's something philosophical that you probably agree with. >> senator, voice all of those in favor of the schumer amendment say aye. those opposed. the aye have it. we have senator cornyn. and -- i think you wish to speak on number nine. >> mr. chairman, i count briefly on the amendment? >> can we -- recognize senator cornyn -- [inaudible] senator cornyn has the floor. >> i would like to call my amendment cornyn number ix. >> senator lee joins me as a cosponsor of the amendment. as i noticed -- noted in my opening remarks, this bill,
12:47am
although i think it represents a constructive contribution and improvement over the status quo which we all agree is status of failure, it falls short of providing certain employers particularly in the construction industry with the access to the labor force usher construction industry needs about 1.8 million workers by the year 2020 it's based on statistics data that said for a.6 million workers employed at end of 2012. a bls construction that the construction industry employ will grow to about 7.4 million. 5.6 to 7. in 2020. according to the numbers, the
12:48am
industry would need roughly 225,000 more workers per year through the end of the decade. we should not be picking winners and losers here because of the relative influence of a single union on the democratic party. i'll continue to try my convince my colleagues on the floor that we should remove this unjustified provision in as the bill moves forward. i will withdraw the amendment at this time and present it on the floor. >> the amendment is withdrawn. amendment number one. senator white.
12:49am
>> thank you. i offer my own second degree to it. >> without objection. the amendment is amended by the second degree, and so the amendment as amended by the second degree is before the exee. >> thank you. >> will senator -- yield for a second. >> my amendment had a second part of it. i have to put in the record for cbo. >> and -- [inaudible] as amended by senator schumer amended by second degree amendment. it passed the committee. it was senate from rhode island ask speak relevantly. the amendment on the floor. would be have you no sense of
12:50am
tradition in the committee? >> i hope it will be a noncontroversial amendment. we have created in this bill urnt the so called invest program a mean for applicants in the country to come in if they do things like create jobs, if they gain investment, pledges, if they advanced stem degree, if they are qualified entrepreneur, if they are qualified investors, and so forth. this amendment would add another category which is those who come to this country under the officers of -- office of a job and entrepreneurship ink bay or it as defined in the amendment.
12:51am
and they live and work in the same facility. they have law officers side by side. investors are brought in. people who help polish their elevators are brought in. people who help them work on the business plan are brought in. these little companies with big idea have a chance in the incubator to grow. these are all over the country. there is the arizona furnace in scottsdale, arizona. the iran yard in greenville and spartan burg, south carolina. there's the boom start-up in utah. texas has tech while caters and the surge accelerator and capital factory. i think the folks who have been chosen to participate in these
12:52am
competitive incubators seem like just the kind of people we want to be able to have join the invest group for status. so i would ask that the amendment be called up. i would hope that, again, it has bipartisan support. it should help all of our states, and perhaps might even be . >> the amendment as amended. all those in favor signify by saying aye. the aye have it. one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine. we have all of our ten members here. >> thank you, chairman and my colleagues. >> and senator lee, wish talk or speak on 18. >> yes, i would like to call my amendment number 18. the lee amendment number 18
12:53am
before the committee. >> senator lee. >> mr. chairman, one of the reasons we a problem with the ill legal immigration because we made legal immigration a difficult time consuming uncertain process. we have made illegal immigration by comparison relatively easy. a temporary worker program that can provide for the needs of the american economy is an essential part, a necessary part independentble part of preventing future illegal imappreciation. if we don't provide a robust framework by which employer can legally fill temporary vacancy. we invite people to enter and work ill illegally. it would increase -- raising it $20 ,000 to $12 00,000. and the postcap to $400 ,000.
12:54am
from the beginning of 1995 to the end of 2004, dhs estimated that the number of illegal entries was roughly 650,000 per year. the number has decreased in large part because of the recent economic downturn. when the economy rebounds, as we hope it will soon within the next few years, employers are likely to need as many as -- many more than the 200,000 that are provided for in the post phase period under the bill. i recognize that the temporary worker program in the bill the product of long negotiations between business and labor, but the single fact remains that if we set a cap that is too low, we'll face labor shortages, and those labor shortages are likely to lead to more of the same kind of illegal immigration we have seen in recent years. i think it would be a much-needed improvement. i'm going continue to work with
12:55am
my colleagues on both sides of the aisle on this. and we'll plan, likely to introduce it on the floor. at this point i'm not asking for a vote and i withdraw lee amendment 18. >> i appreciate that. >> does the senator wish to call number 19 >> >> we. i would like to call lee amendment number 19. >> lee amendment 19 is before the committee. >> it's bill allows any person to submit a complaint to dhs regarding the failure of the registered employer to meet a condition of the w visa program more regarding the laying off of the u.s. worker and violation of the program requirement. we don't want them using the complaint process as tool to injury other business os union. such complaint tend to waste valuable resource at dhs and at the work site effective. this amendment would allow a party to hit complaint while
12:56am
preventing malicious complaint. in that respect, it achieves a balance. it's another one i'm going continue to keep pushing. ly withdraw at this point and not ask far vote. thank you, mr. chairman. >> i thank the senator for his cooperation. anybodies else on tight four? >> if not we move on to title iii. e verify seeks recommendation. senator from minnesota. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> this is franken two. >> franken two is before the committee. i have tight three, second degree amendment to it as well. >> by cop sent the amendment to the senator of from minnesota
12:57am
number two will be amended by the substitute and the substitute is -- [inaudible conversations] franken two as amended is before the committee. second degree. second degree is before the committee. >> yeah. >> okay. let me say what this is. e verify is a critical part of the bill that very reason we really should make sure that it works. especially for small business and workers. that's what this amendment is about. making sure that e verify system works for small businesses, and forth 2009e verify rejected one out of every 125 legal workers who are run through the system
12:58am
today active said it has fewer error but the errors persist, dairy farmers, nursery, and many other small businesses in many my state e verify doesn't work as well as people say it does. when errors occur, they are burden to small business and people. you hear stories from around the country about the hardship that these errors impose on workers, give you a few example. a citizen a former navy captain who held a high security clearance reported that e verify flagged him as being ineligible to work. it took his family and an attorney two months to fix the error. in 2010 a stt born in florida was hired by a telecommunication firm. e verify said she wasn't legal. she was fired unemployed for
12:59am
three months. last month an naturalizeed citizen told minnesota public radio that e verify rejected her three time. minnesota is the only place i call home. underred bill, almost all businesses have to use the e verify in four years. if error rates are what dhs claims it won't be that bad. if they are a half percentage point higher, the federal government will tell a half million legal workers they can't work. it will be on the worker's problem. for a lot of my constituents and the social security officers up to a four hour trip away, and regardless of travel time. a lot of people won't be able to fix the errors in ten days.
1:00am
a lot of them will lose their jobs. a fortunate 500 company can help the employees navigate federal burke. they can handle the error. but a small business you won't have the time or resources to deal with the errors. unfortunately there's nothing in the bill that requires dhs to keep these error rates down. there are studies but no real pressure to make sure that e verify is accurate. i was planning to operate bipartisan amendment with senator lee and senator -- that would have delayed the phase of the e verify for small error rates were sufficiently low. but senator schumer told me it would be a deal breaker. i don't want to break this deal. >> thank you.
1:01am
>> you're welcome. i support the my friend has done. and senator durbin, and men then does, and grassley and flake within senator mccain senator rubio. i'm going to offer two other amendment. it would create the pressure by lowering cap for the first time recordkeeping fines in businesses where the error rates go not above today's level but that is the correction i made which will be the.3. t not -- my second degree. it's not an unrealistic
1:02am
standard. two weeks ago secretary janet napolitano herself testified before the committee she could keep error rates at today's level. this is not also not reward for lawbreakers. the amendment is consistent with bill i.t. it said that the secretary of dhs or judge can reduce recordkeeping fines down zero if they see fit. it's a precedent from the gang reducing this very fine in the appropriate circumstances. this is a reasonable amendment that would make sure that errors in the e verify do not place unreasonable burden on small businesses and working people. i urge my colleagues to support it. >> a question. do you define error rate.
1:03am
>> yes. >> we define error rate. >> a number of legal -- it's because it's an error rate that is actually easy to define. which is a number of legal people who are legal who get turned down. >> okay. >> understand if a yellow light comes on and it's corrected. it's still considered part of the error rate. it seems to me you ought to may be exceptions for when it pops -- that's correct. the yellow light means some people have to travel 100 -- the yellow light is burdensome to the small business, which is, you know, the original amendment we're going do is it doesn't kick until businesses under had 14 and under. that's what they do in utah. that's why senator lee was on that. the yellow slight a burden on small business. it's a burden on the worker. if the worker has to go 100.
1:04am
>> you're blaming the system. if the worker changed the name and the name isn't changed in the system. it's still an error. that's a person's problem. not the system's problem. >> well, look. the dhs already deals with errors that are made by employerses like when they type in the name wrong. they have program now that automatically changes, you know, who says you may be spelling this wrong. you know, just because an employer or worker cause an error doesn't mean that dhs can't fix it or patrol for it. you know, like another issue with naturalized social security failing to update the social security records. that's an error suppose think cause bid the worker. dhs now mitigates that by making
1:05am
sure that a query by a -- dhs already helps mid gait the errors coming from the worker. what we are seen that the business error rate isn't about errors the workers mate. that's the rate we have. the example i'm telling you about are example of real people whornl who were spit out as illegal. it was burdensome on small businesses and dairy farmers in minnesota and iowa are small businesses. and they're benefiting by the w -- by their new guest worker program for ag.
1:06am
and i want to carve out, senator lee wanted to 1 under. we're not going to do that. it's a deal breaker. it's something this is just something here to put a little bit of an incentive for the department of home land security to make sure that that they get the system accurate. >> senator cloab char on a similar condition. we need e for vie. we want to verify they are lisle. that's a major part of the bill. there's been issues in the past. i've been supportive of e verify but supportive of making it more accurate. it's a simple concept. it will save small businesses money through no fault of their own, the system is inaccurate, and second, which senator
1:07am
franken pointed out it creates an incentive for df to be more accurate. and that's when we want to do. we want to get the accurate sincerity numbers up. they claim they can make them. why not put monetary incentive in place they get less money in place if they're not accurate. i think it's a great amendment. >> thank you. centerly a well intentioned effort. there's a period before small businesses have to implement this. it's a significant time. hopefully the error rates will go down. when it comes to decision making
1:08am
based on the system. i think there are protections in the legislation. i would i know we come under a lot of criticism for not going after employers or not making sure that employer are fined when they run afoul of the law they hire people that now are not here legally. i would a oppose the amendment. i know, it's well intentioned. i certainly think we ought to make sure in every way that we aren't putting undue burdens on businesses. they need to have the tool, which they don't have now to determine that the person that presenting themselves to be hired is here legally.
1:09am
the there's is a good faith protection in this. so it's about -- tindz appliesble to technical or procedural errors. there are more than that here. i just think that this creates some incentive for the e verify to get it to work. dhs to get it to work. i yield to senator schumer. >>. >> i already yielded. >> i'm sorry. you're the chairman. i know, you were -- i know you want to respond to senator flake. so i did not cut that off. senator sessions and senator schumer. >> thank you. >> i felt and stated publicly it looked to me one of the best things in the legislation is the out utilizationization
1:10am
throughout the system. all utilize e verify. it has potential for improvement. these strongest farm bill. i'm worried theantd now. it looks like, to me, one reading of the bill suggests we could have as long as 18 years before some of this would be completed. it ignores and causes me great concern. we need to look at this the point we're moving away from the current e verify system that is actually highly effective. overall for e99.eu7 blarng blank it's usually resolved in a matter of hours. it's not a failed system. it's a very effective system. the idea much moving to an entirely new system is going
1:11am
cost a lot of money and perhaps be delayed in him limit implementation. i think that's a -- what we're looking at. i'm not delaying any implementation. >> i know. >> we're talking about my amendment here. this is ga orbing 2011 report. they i gave you example and small business have burdens. and just trying to put something in here to incentivize dhs to make it better. >> when you multiple -- . >> i appreciate my colleague that didn't want to finish my comment. >> i'm sorry. i'm sorry.
1:12am
you continue with what you were saying. senator franken, i know you are concerned about working americans. i know, the sponsor the bill contend that while in effect i will suggest they say, we weaken the buy metric system, we weaken the standards at the border. don't worry about it. e verify is going to fix everything in the future. nobody will come in to the country because we're going to have an e verify system and won't be able to get jobbings. well, we know that's not an effective system today. we have lot of people working outside an underground economy. we'll have that people entering illegally. however, what i'm saying, senator franken, we have got to have a system. we cannot proceed henceforth on the idea that we're going to united based on an e verify the
1:13am
system if we demand too much and don't allow it to prove they shouldn't be disqualified. that's all i'm saying. i believe the e verify reform is critical to your legislation. i'm going continue to study it because i believe there's some dangers here it might not be implemented effectively. if it is. it will be a step forward. >> we have exactly the same concerns. you started by saying that it is very effective. and then you kind of end you were saying it wouldn't be effected. >> it's going to be changed. >> one at the time, please. let senator franken finish. >> yeah z.
1:14am
>> and senator schumer and senator graham. >> i think we have the same goal here to make it as effective as possible. >> right. all this does is saylet put a smallth incentive in for dhs to make it effective. it is -- you talk about the error rate. senator flake was very right in saying that when you have now 11 million people here coming out of the shadow, the error rate may go up. all i want to do is make this work as well as -- and work for small business. and the error rate now is about -- as you say .26 for legal people who get ruled out. if you increase bay half of percent, you know, when you're the system is up. that's 60 million workers that becomes -- that's how many people going through the
1:15am
system. that's 480,000 legal workers are told they can't work. i want to make sure that we have something in place here that creates incentive for conversation to make it work as well as possible. we hear a lot of arguments about putting things in place that don't work. let -- this is all i'm trying to do is make it work. >> thank you. senator schumer. >> chairman, i'll be brief. >> and senator graham. >> i want to thank senator franken for the hard work on the issue. it's a very goal more confounding to a family fa needs somebody working a breadwinner or somebody else. they get botched up in the system. and to have a trigger, could have been as senator franken mentioned, a deal breaker. it could have stopped people on a bath to citizenship. it's better recruit. it's an approach that is mindful
1:16am
of the parameter of the bill that seeks to improve the e verify system and provides recourse for workers who might get caught up in a system that will never be 100%. i want to thank you for understanding our concerns and for improving the bill on this amendment and on the next one he will offer as well. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> senator graham? >> i would put senator cornyn's concerns about the border in the same category. constructive. maybe they are too loose. the goal is to make them real. but at the same time achievable. e verify. i know, where you're going. it let metthow it works in south carolina. south carolina passed a law for mabd story e verify and working pretty good. my former campaign manager who still works for my campaign got kicked out of a system and had
1:17am
to spend an entire day at social security office proving that she was who she said she was. s not a pleasant experience. we're trying to reduce that as much as possible. one thing i want to tell the american people, if you are going get the issue resolved and prevent the third way i can't promise you you won't be inconvenienced. there's going to be false positive in e verify. as senator cornyn said there's going concern about spirit in which both comments were made. indian it's not that we found a magic solution here. my concern is i wat people to
1:18am
try really hard to hire legal americans. i want a system they can access. here is the data limb ma for an employer. the current system is beyond broken. the current law doesn't work. if it worked we wouldn't have 11 million illegal immigrants. we are trying to give employers an opportunity to help make the country a better place by controlling who gets a job. in senator session has been a big advocate of this. we are trying to make it better. i know, it was a spirit which the amendment was offered. my former campaign manager penda away from her family and away from her work to get this
1:19am
t. here is what i told her. it was a day well spent. it allowed us in south carolina to have better control over a bad problem for the state and national. >> thank you all those in favor of the franken amendment signify by saying aye. >> aye. >> opposed. >> no. >> aye appear to have it. senator grassley . >> i'll take up amendment 31. this amendment would require u.s. citizensship and immigration service to report on a weekly basis to the immigration and custom nonconfon through e for vie. today the u.s. citizenship and immigration service runs e
1:20am
verify. this would continue to be the agency in charge of e verify if the bill passes. but we know that even though both are in the department of homeland security, that silos exist there. the different component don't communicate. i know, it's hard for the taxpayers and people within the country to understand within the same agency you can have some set of them, not talking to each other. and there's problems when it doesn't happen. or three, provides a final nonconformation. but what does the united customs and immigration service do with the information? they don't share the information with the sister agency who is in
1:21am
charge of enforcement of the law. how many times during this whole day of debate on this issue over the years we've been talking about immigration, everybody is talking about how come we don't have more enforcement? well, this is one of the reasons you don't have more enforcement. within the same department, they aren't talking to each other. and so the job isn't getting done. since all employers will be required to use the system, and after legalization goes in to effect, we have to be serious about deterring unauthorized individuals from working in the united states. that's what verification is about. that's what border security is about. that's what the bill is about. enforcement, legalization, and border security. so we have to make sure enforcement works.
1:22am
a way to deter employers hiring from people undocumented and deter people working in the country illeg s to know that immigration and customs may be doing back end investigations. this amendment, then, would require the customs and immigration service to report weekly on those people who are nonconfirmed through the system. now, as you know, the system has set up allows people to contest. and to sort through tentive nonconformation. and someone is nonconfirmed, ice should at least have knowledge of what is going on. in other words, the left-hand of government ought to know what the right hand is doing. it's kind of boiling down to the 844-page bill becomes law, do
1:23am
you want it to work or not? you say you want enforcement. i think nobody is going deny they want enforcement. well, if you're going have enforcement, the left-hand has to know what the right hand is doing. and the enforcement is one of the foundations of this legislation. i yield the floor. >> madam chair. >> senator schumer. >> thank you. i understand the intent of this amendment. ting has good intent. i think part is pretty good amendment. and so let me divide it. to have to be give i.c.e. a report and telling us the name and social security number of every illegal alien that uses e verify makes sense. i'm for that. it's requires an investigation of each one. here is how most illegal immigrants get around the system. they use the citizens' name.
1:24am
so illegal immigrant smith would have the name chuck schumer. -- that's -- no. have the name bill joandz. and bill jones is a citizens living on citizens street in anywhere, u.s.a. they know bill eurozone is a real citizens. they have to check him out. it's a huge amount of resources that is wasted. to have the left-hand know what the right hand is doing imminently reasonable. to say that every one of them must have to track them down and investigate them it's going to be spending most of their time tracking down legal citizens of names have been used through no fault of their own. i would ask my colgue if we could divide this amendment and have the reporting part in the bill but not the mandatory tracking i support it.
1:25am
>> is there objection? being none. that, the order. all those in favor . >> ma'am chair. >> do you object? >> no. >> i ask to strike line nine through 13 and. >> there being known. that will be the order. all those in favor please say aye -- . >> i want to comment. >> excuse me. senator sessions. >> one of the things that have gotten to be done is improve the status in a ability of ice to do the job. many of you do not realize the extend which the administration is basically forbid ice to do the basic work to identify people to using fraudulent document the to enter america. it's really stunning.
1:26am
they voted unanimously to no confidence in john morton, the director of the department of i.c.e. they filed a lawsuit in texas preliminarily have won in which they have served the secretary janet napolitano refusing to allow them to carry out congressional, legal, mandate involving dpe oration. they have written a letter along with host of share to we received and i think you have gotten in the last few days that says the enforcement mechanism in this bill will not work. so we're basically said we're not enforcing the law now. we're not going to enforce the law now. we're not deporting anybody now. but if you pass this bill, don't worry. we'll enforce it in the future. and i got to say, we have to have a real commitment somewhere so we can have confidence that the internal enforcement agency,
1:27am
i.c.e., allowed to do the job and going need to be empowered because what happened if somebody alie -- applies for a job and e verify identifies they're using a false identity, and illegally in the country, and may be have prior convictions and will anybody ever investigate that? on the conder system, nothing is being done. they are basically given amnesty or a say harbor to submit any false document that is chosen. if they get by with it. they get hired. if they get caught, nobody ever does anything about it. >> if you have -- if we do this system right, we make clear that the person who submit false document are not going to be given a safe harbor, but will be held to account for that, you begin to have the progress through creating a lawful system that is necessary. i'm not exaggerating this.
1:28am
the administration is undermined the entire internal enforcement system in america. you have to know that. they're not enforcing anything at the workplace, they're not following up on fraudulent documents on the areas where e verify is occurring. and nothing is occurring to create lawfulness. american people know this, i think. and beginning to learn more of it. and even blocking states who want to be supportive of the federal government who have come in cabbing with people be false documents who are here illegally and intimidated them. sued states that want to be cooperative. gutted the 287 program that allow the local law enforcement to participate. i guess my real concern is this amendment will help. it sends a message that congress is concerned about actual investigations.
1:29am
but we're so far from what is fundamentally necessary to create a legal system that we've got to be sure -- it will be a problem for the birl if it can't be established in the future. there's a real plan in effort and commitment to expand the ability to have internal enforcement. it just cannot be a law of the united states if you get past the border get past the border patrol home free and nothing will ever happen. >> we have -- maybe others wish to speak, we have eight senators currently -- president was willing to accept the voice vote amendment as amended. senator koontz. all of those in favor of the
1:30am
grassley amendment as amended signify by -- excuse me. choked on that water. hang on. >> aye. >> ay erk. >> opposed -- the aye appear to have it. the aye have it. senator, do you have an amendment? >> thank you, mr. chairman. i bring up the koontz i, this is a amendment that ensure notification to individuals whenever the e verify record accessed. ..
1:31am
1:32am
1:33am
the aye have it and the next is senator dwrases -- grassley. amendment 38. [inaudible] my amendment would allow parents who are legal guardian -- my amendment would allow parents or legal guardians to prevent the theft of their child's identity, meaning sold through social security, children are being targeted by a lot of thieves. their social security numbers are at risk. and parents should have the power to lock their number and protect them from year's worth of trouble in trying to fix the situation. ..
1:34am
1:35am
1:36am
the bill requires a secretary to issue regulations within one year of date. these regulations are -- to issue final regulations. so you have to add at least one year to the phasing. not everyone will be required to use exverify for six years after date of enactment. of course the big companies will be required to use it in three at the earliest. my amendment requires all businesses, no matter the size or industry, to use e verify within 18 months after the date of enactment. now that may sound like quite a change. but why this legislation didn't go along with a time frame that
1:37am
we set previously, the last time these issues were up, i want to refer then to the language of an amendment of this amendment comes straight from the amendment that i coauthored with senator baa cuss -- bah cause and senator barack obama in 2007. the amendment not only required all employers to use a system within 18 months, we went further and required all employers to check their current work force in three years. ..
1:38am
1:39am
i yield the floor. [inaudible conversations]
1:40am
[inaudible conversations] >> senator --. >> i dislike these mics. >> the senator from iowa, does he intend to bring up two after these? >> yep. >> two more after this. we are waiting on the schedule. senator schumer. >> we want e verify to work as quickly as possible. the problem is, it would be virmingly -- virtually impossible to have it works in 18 months. the system has to add in 5 million employers, as we all know, it's not mandatory right now. it would be. right now it can handle about 180,000 regular concentration a year. it's going to take awhile to gear up. it's a natural thing. it can result in utilizationization. it will be over 51 million query a year under our estimate. now there are 16 million. so it's a good idea to get this
1:41am
going as quickly as possible. it's a bad dwrod set a time frame that could not work. and i just make one poi probably the leading proponent of getting e verify in place on a mandatory basis as quickly as possible in the house is senator lamar smith, the head of the judiciary committee when he rotated off. even in his bill last year, he had a four-year window. not an 18-month window. i would urge the amendment, well intended as it is and the goal to get it in place as quickly in possible. it's a impossible timeline. >> if we get enough people, we can vote. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to give some additional reason for this. i think the gang of 8 did a clear job. and a pragmatic acknowledgment. there's been problems it's hard for small businesses and for farmers to adjust to this
1:42am
system. and what they did is said, okay, througcompanies with over employees, in fact, they will be phased in within two years. more than 500 employees phased in within three, and all employers including ag employers it kinks. it's improving every year. it acknowledge it's on the path to improvement and allows those bigger employers that are going employ the majority of the employees to get in within two years. >> let me try to do this in less than thirty seconds. >> i think 18 months is not a fair time frame. i don't think it's fair to
1:43am
employers, i don't think we can get the system to a level of sophistication where they can use it and not be subject to fines. i don't think it's fair to applicants because the senator franken has said so aptly, there's an error rate here, which we have to deal with in an honest fashion. it certainly isn't fair the overall context. we are moving forward on e verify as part of a system. the first time in twenty seven years we dealt with immigration law. it's going to impact the lives of millions of americans. let's get it right. if it takes a little while longer. [inaudible] >> senator franken?
1:44am
>> wait a minute. speak the last five minutes. senator sessions, it's very important, the system was designed for this very purpose. it's quite capable of handling the number of people that would be involved in it. to put it off four years or maybe longer. instead of initially moving forward with the e verify system that should long ago made applicable to private employers. it's just undermines confidence when you see this kind of legislation. i don't think we need a new system. it produces the likelihood of further delays. senator grassley, we're ready to go forward. the system works well. if the new system has got to be
1:45am
virtually perfect, with virtually no errors in it. it's going to be delay, delay, delay, we may never see it happen. >> my opposition would be because we have a current system handles around 180,000 new regular concentrations a year. the bill brings about millions we have to add to it. the bill is a staggered role to give companies time to adopt the system. which is worked out on a bipartisan agreement. i don't think it's the best way. senator grassley. you get the closing remarks. the clerk will call the roll. >> okay. you have to remember it's a big part of the underlying concept of this legislation you heard senator graham say several times that e verify is even more important than border security.
1:46am
.. an. >> [roll call].
1:47am
>> before i go to let me know if senator blumenthal is here or his role will be cast fitch share votes no. >> the amendment is not agreed to. senator frank is. >> where is my amendment in the vote to order? >>. >> without objection the amendment number four will be modified by the second-degree amendment and the amendment number four as
1:48am
monitored by the second degree is by the committee. >> i have already talked about my concern about air raids call it has a series of ways to appeal and argue their cases before a judge there is to advocate for small businesses and employees to get to do get in on adversarial advice to comply with the mandates and non adversarial to solve problems with the mandates. people get confused in this process. my amendment addresses this requires you just whose sole job is to advise and help small businesses and employees comply with all the requirements in this title. i can this is the attempt to make this work. the office will also help small businesses and employees deal with e-verify
1:49am
errors and it is modeled almost verbatim after the lobby passed in 1988 creating the taxpayer assistance service the independent office that helps people and businesses with tax problems of which has been very successful. this office of the small employee advocate will make e-verify work better for our businesses and people that has the national small business association, aclu, american immigration lawyers association and conference for civil rights prior to my colleague says -- colleagues to support the amendment. >> i am understand we can do the voice vote. >> i can be sympathetic what you try to do for small business but you do not limit just too small business.
1:50am
>> it is available to the small business and employee but if a legal employee is turned out as a legal and is confused they can call into the office to get advice. >> and i was not clear on my question not business verses employee but it isn't limited but just to small business? >> small business gets priority do we have the size ? fifty and under they get priority but if a large business does they can get help. >> all those in favor of the franken amendment as the second to signify by saying the i. next is crassly number 34. just the people know the speeches are getting shorter
1:51am
which is wonderful because people are getting hungrier. [laughter] here is the schedule we get through all of these we can reassess and to all monday morning we have senator grassley plan with all 18 and grassley 35 and 34. >> i thank you announce to right 35. >> i want to take number 351st. >> senator grassley is recognized. >> today laws requiring the use of e-verify by the state contractors employers for years the federal government has refused to enforce the laws against illegal undocumented workers and
1:52am
states of taken it upon themselves to get the problem under control. now these of the facts. 19 states have adopted e-verify laws some of those like arizona and alabama cover virtually all employers. others like missouri and nebraska cover public employees and contractors. the states take the lead to a crackdown on employers to hire illegal workers were the government has failed and frankly obstructed the enforcement of immigration laws through lawsuits. these laws are constitutional and have been upheld by the united states supreme court despite the fact obama is administration objected to them and file briefs with the court asking to strike down the state laws.
1:53am
but the supreme court upheld them and upheld them as consistent with current federal law because they limited consequences for employers who don't comply to the revocation of business license that would be arizona verses united states. despite the progress made to ensure a legal work force this would preempt the state e-verify laws, ordinances, policies, rules as soon as the bill is enacted. this does not make e-verify mandatory and we discussed that in my last amendment but when all is said and done the requirement to use e-verify does not apply to all employers and tall for years after the department
1:54am
of:security adopts regulations on page 4308 of the bill as he had seen with other massive bills such as this it could take years for the department to implement regulations moreover the new rules governing e-verify -- e-verify inc. into the bill invites litigation to am -- and also wait to implement e-verify my amendment allows states e-verify flaws remain in effect until the federal mandate to use e-verify is in place. state laws are on a pre-emptive after all employers are finally participating to use the system. the bill before us delays mandatory e-verify although it is ready to go nationwide
1:55am
as i just discussed. if we're going to send the signal that e-verify can wait until after legalization and we should respect the state's that have gone to great lengths to control the situation within their borders. it is time we get serious about enforcement. we need to stop the magnet for the undocumented immigrants to deter people from stealing identities to try to work in this country. if we're not serious about enforcing the law to uphold employers accountable we will be back in the same position 25 years from now. let me summarize a little more broadly it just irritates me that the states pass laws in the reason they are passed because quite frankly the federal government isn't doing its job to enforce what is a federal responsibility
1:56am
responsibility, immigration to protect the border. protecting the sovereignty of our country so when the federal government isn't doing that and the state's under the tenth amendment feel they should protect their people instead of having the federal government fight the state's riches have the federal government working in cooperation to enforce federal laws if the federal government will not assume its responsibility. i hope you adopt my amendment. >> a bit you wish to speak? >> senator schumer. >> i oppose this amendment. it is supposing we pre-emption state and local laws but again we like states rights as much as possible but we have a system to get a national system that is the only way to stop the future wave of illegal immigration and the
1:57am
harder that will be and i know my colleagues on the other side want to do everything they can and the promise the bill is that so imagine if one state says one who has registered as a provisional immigrant cannot work to to make it a driver's license another says they can without a work permit until the application period is over it would drive employers crazy to comply with 50 different laws in one of the biggest reasons we have seen comprehensive reform is to end the patchwork not to let local police audit your tax returns or arrest you for not paying student loans. said immigration is a federal matter and we will have the universal system of e-verify and how it is applied. i oppose the amendment.
1:58am
>> is there a request i'm sorry. senator sessions? >> senator graham mentioned the elephant in the realm it is congress passes laws and tells the american people they will work, trust us. and a dozen have been. that is what has been going on 30 years through congress. we know it. we pass laws and build fences they are not built van and things are not done. now we have a situation where a number of states states, half a dozen require private contractors to use e-verify and it works with the current legal system and approved of the united states supreme court and this bill deliberately undermines that and promises the new e-verify system
1:59am
somewhere in the future and trust us this will be implemented. i think this is the wrong and dangerous approach. it is the nullification of the state laws and the unnecessary attempt to block states from doing what the federal government should be doing and using the current system today and works exceedingly well on federal and state and we should not block for that to continue as this bill will and to the extent it will cause a lot of litigation which is unnecessary but i urge senator grassley amendment shall be accepted but what it does is say we get busy now, we get e-verify system
2:00am
now and we don't stop the state laws and require the businesses use the federal e-verify system. >> is there a request for the role call? [roll call]

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)